Hello Luis,
I did not read the complete patch but closely looked at the CRDA design picture. I have a comment:
The company I work for has special regulatory approval to use amplified WLAN on certain channels (up to 4W). The nodes additionally have non-amplified WLAN adapters that fall under the normal regulatory requirements. It would be nice if your work allowed to specify such cases, e.g. have different regulatory restrictions for differen cards in the same machine. In our case we would like to restrict the amplified interface to the channels it is allowed to run on.
--
Regards
Joerg
__________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail.
Dem pfiffigeren Posteingang.
http://de.overview.mail.yahoo.com
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:09 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:28 AM, Joerg Pommnitz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hello Luis,
>> I did not read the complete patch but closely looked at the CRDA design picture. I have a comment:
>> The company I work for has special regulatory approval to use amplified WLAN on certain channels (up to 4W). The nodes additionally have non-amplified WLAN adapters that fall under the normal regulatory requirements. It would be nice if your work allowed to specify such cases, e.g. have different regulatory restrictions for differen cards in the same machine. In our case we would like to restrict the amplified interface to the channels it is allowed to run on.
>
> Hm, interesting. Well you can simply use a custom db.txt with a custom
> PGP private key to sign it and also provide your customers with a
> custom CRDA which uses this. All you'd have to do is modify the keys
> and db.txt. This of course doesn't work to help comply if you have
I meant to say if you don't have.
> extra regulatory efforts on the drivers using the EEPROM of firmware
> so the next best thing would be to add a struct ieee80211_regdomain to
> each struct wiphy. I considered this too but this starts to move away
> from the centralized scheme. Its good you mention this case though.
> Can you elaborate a bit more on it. Why do you need two separate WLAN
> devices on one node where each one of them is using very different
> regulatory rules? Do they both use the same frequency ranges?
Luis
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:28 AM, Joerg Pommnitz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Luis,
> I did not read the complete patch but closely looked at the CRDA design picture. I have a comment:
> The company I work for has special regulatory approval to use amplified WLAN on certain channels (up to 4W). The nodes additionally have non-amplified WLAN adapters that fall under the normal regulatory requirements. It would be nice if your work allowed to specify such cases, e.g. have different regulatory restrictions for differen cards in the same machine. In our case we would like to restrict the amplified interface to the channels it is allowed to run on.
Hm, interesting. Well you can simply use a custom db.txt with a custom
PGP private key to sign it and also provide your customers with a
custom CRDA which uses this. All you'd have to do is modify the keys
and db.txt. This of course doesn't work to help comply if you have
extra regulatory efforts on the drivers using the EEPROM of firmware
so the next best thing would be to add a struct ieee80211_regdomain to
each struct wiphy. I considered this too but this starts to move away
from the centralized scheme. Its good you mention this case though.
Can you elaborate a bit more on it. Why do you need two separate WLAN
devices on one node where each one of them is using very different
regulatory rules? Do they both use the same frequency ranges?
Luis
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Joerg Pommnitz <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote am Mi, 11.6.2008:
>
>> Can you elaborate a bit more on it. Why do you need two
>> separate WLAN
>> devices on one node where each one of them is using very
>> different
>> regulatory rules?
>
> The interface connected to the amplifier provides long range communication (up to 5km) on reserved channels. The nodes work as routers/APs that provide access to "normal" WLAN devices (this is where the second wireless device comes into play). So:
> * two WLAN devices: 1x long range with amplifier, 1x short range as AP
> * different regulatory settings: the regulatory rules for the device with amplifier differ from those without amplifier.
OK then yes the current CRDA design covers this. You have a PtP link
(long range 4W) and a PtMP setup (the AP). You can define PtP rules
which are different from PtMP rules. We however still need to then
make mac80211 aware of these differences of type of links. But yes,
the design covers it.
Check out
regdb.h from CRDA, we have RRF_PTP_ONLY and RRF_PTMP_ONLY flags.
So you can just define your own rules with your own db.txt. You know
what you're getting into. Not everyone is allowed to output at 4W so
you can define your own db.txt and sign it yourself.
>> Do they both use the same frequency
>> ranges?
>
> This is not required. Currently both use channels in the 2.4GHz range, but there is a very good chance that we will move into the 5GHz range for the amplified backbone (yes, we know that this will come at a cost).
>
>> Luis
>
> Thanks for taking an interest
Thanks for reviewing.
Luis
--- Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote am Mi, 11.6.2008:
> Can you elaborate a bit more on it. Why do you need two
> separate WLAN
> devices on one node where each one of them is using very
> different
> regulatory rules?
The interface connected to the amplifier provides long range communication (up to 5km) on reserved channels. The nodes work as routers/APs that provide access to "normal" WLAN devices (this is where the second wireless device comes into play). So:
* two WLAN devices: 1x long range with amplifier, 1x short range as AP
* different regulatory settings: the regulatory rules for the device with amplifier differ from those without amplifier.
> Do they both use the same frequency
> ranges?
This is not required. Currently both use channels in the 2.4GHz range, but there is a very good chance that we will move into the 5GHz range for the amplified backbone (yes, we know that this will come at a cost).
> Luis
Thanks for taking an interest
Joerg
__________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail.
Dem pfiffigeren Posteingang.
http://de.overview.mail.yahoo.com